What fools the Liberals are - they could have basically controlled the government for the past year. Now, they may never see power again for a long, long, time. And all the damage that Harper is doing can be placed squarely at the Liberals feet. Smucks are what the Ignatieff Liberals are.

I knew Topp was a great strategist and I've always appreciated the fact that he actually wants the NDP to win, but I had no idea until recently what a compelling writer he is. This is the foundation for a great book.

Dion never left them enough time to correct any errors, given the number of times he revised the draft of what he was going to say. Anyone can make a mistake with technology, but there was no time left to fix it. It was Peter Gzowski's son, Mick Gzowski, apparently holding the camera. He does video for a living now, I think I read. Dion's chief of staff later acknowledged that they'd left him 25 minutes to shoot 20 minutes of footage. No-one could work under that situation.

over the coming week, the folks at globeandmail.com are going to post some extracts from a longer piece I've written on these events.

Where can we buy the book?

I agree, Topp's blog series is absolutely riveting reading! Takes me right back to that exhilirating time a year ago when we were speculating on which Cabinet posts would go to Layton, Mulcair, Judy W-L, etc...

It would be great to have a book-length version of Topp's story, with similar oral history perspectives from the other coalition participants.

In essence, the coalition was a combination of Dion trying to do an end-run around his party to become PM and Layton's extremely strategic siezing of the opportunity to take the NDP into a governing coalition. I was dismayed at the time that we gave in on the corporate tax cuts, but it was a good-faith attempt to build a unity coalition at a time of crisis. The coalition government with Dion and Layton would have been significantly more progressive on EI, green stimulus spending and climate change than the sorry excuse for a government we have now under Harper.

Sadly, this was a historically unique circumstance that is very unlikely to be repeated in the forseeable future. The Harper spin machine won the day as Topp writes and I think the Libs in particular are totally against any form of coalition or even electoral cooperation as Michael Byers suggested a few weeks ago. If Rae is the next Lib leader, I predict he will rule out the coalition the day he announces his next leadership campaign.

just excellent writing, and he certainly called the msm on their part in the anti-democratic lies of Harper...and just what are the implications of what he states, in this respect?

Quote:

The Prime Minister’s very first line captured the whole Conservative case: “Mr. Speaker, the highest principle of Canadian democracy is that if one wants to be prime minister one gets one’s mandate from the Canadian people and not from Quebec separatists.”

That, of course, is not true. The highest principle of Canadian democracy is that Parliament gets its mandate from the Canadian people, and then selects a ministry from among its ranks to do its bidding. But truth had nothing to do with what happened next.

If the shoe had been on the other foot, and it had been Stephen Harper’s Conservatives at the head of a parliamentary majority moving in the first days of a new Parliament to unseat an isolated minority government (as Mr. Harper had been planning to do when he was an opposition leader), English-speaking Canadians on December 2 and 3, 2008, would have heard a very different song from their television networks, open-mouth radio, newspapers and magazines. They would have been listening to lectures about parliamentary history, parliamentary democracy, responsible government, the need for the executive to be democratically accountable – and the need for the executive to find its legitimacy from a majority of the House of Commons each and every day of its existence, failing which the House had both the power and the duty to install a new ministry that could command that support.

But in this case, it was an isolated minority Conservative government that had lost its parliamentary support. And so it was the Tory Prime Minister’s themes that English Canadians heard

bolding my own...

And can there be any doubt Harper and Ignatieff are controlled by the same people? Cause this is way to rich...

Quote:

late January Mr. Ignatieff in effect led his caucus into the Conservative lobby, voting confidence in Stephen Harper’s government, support for its fiscal measures, and an end to the new and better government his party had agreed with ours.

In return, Mr. Ignatieff negotiated an arrangement under which the Harper government could and woulduse public funds to publicize its measures every quarter.

That was a commitment Mr. Harper was happy to give Mr. Ignatieff, and to keep.

It was way obvious that Iggy was out of his league in negotiating anything with the Harper govt. He didn't give a rat's ass about the 62% who did not vote for a conservative led govt but it was all about him and him being king one day. He sold out in plain view - like a snake in "selling the private negotiations" for his "day in the sun" that will never come.

I guess he never heard that a bird in the hand is worth more than 2 in the bush. But why would he - with his head and arse stuck in his elitest sky - that a commoners understanding on how the world really works.

Of course, Warren Kinsella can't abide it when he's not part of a big story, and just HAS to let everyone know that he was the Ignatieff insider ... as if we couldn't already tell (like, dude, who else would write that way!).

I should learn though not to read the comments. I have to say the next time I hear someone say the NDP shouldn't govern because of Bob Rae I will scream. It's as if there has never been questionable leadership from provincial and federal governments by other parties. Good grief grab a brain.

All proposals for fundamental institutional change – for example, replacing the Governor-General with a legitimate, accountable president elected by the House of Commons – founder on the impossibility of amending the current Canadian constitution without the consent of provinces, who will want more power in the bargain. It therefore falls to the House of Commons to defend Canada’s only national democratic body within the current rules.

Here are two things I submit it could do: First, the House of Commons could and should legislate to direct the prime minister to never provide advice to the Governor-General that interferes with the functioning of the House when a confidence motion is before it. This would hopefully make it more difficult for a prime minister to avoid democratic accountability to the House of Commons through a politically illegitimate and improper use of the Royal prerogative.

Second, the House of Commons could (and I think should) legislate that confidence votes must come in one of two forms. Option A: the government is defeated and an election is called. Or option B: the government is defeated and immediately replaced, at that moment, by a new one, specified by the House of Commons in its confidence vote. Subject of course to final approval by Her Majesty, as represented by our Governor-General, who in these circumstances will hopefully be more attentive to the views of the House of Commons.

By making the intention and consequence of confidence votes explicitly clear like this, less room will be left for prime ministers and their ciphers to make mischief with the constitution or our democracy. The House of Commons can either dissolve itself and take its discontents to the electorate, or it can poleaxe the prime minister and his hand-picked cabinet and install another more to its liking – a constructive vote of no-confidence.

A few things strike me about this. The rapid responce Topp got from his Tory contact, regarding "handing over the country to the separatists." So fast, it illustrates how the Tories had already gamed the various scenarios. Looks as if the Tories new what we were going to do before we did. If we're going to play with these guys, we better bring our game up a level or two.

The second thing is the unbelievable arrogance of the Liberals. Here we were, throwing them a life line, doing them a favour they didn't possibly deserve in a gazillion years, doing them a favour that was against NDP interests, and they treated the NDP like dirt, bargaining this and that like they had a position to bargain from. It's clear they did not appreciate their situation then, and there's been nothing in the intervening year that shows they have come to a non fantasy based appreciation of their situation. Rae and Iggy think they are fighting for the captaincy of a machine that ensures them a ride to Prime Minister on the HMS Natural Governing Party, instead of the Titanic.

There's just nothing to be done with the Liberals now, except do whatever we can to hasten their dissapearance from Canadian Politics.

Thirdly, I am impressed with Topp, and with Layton. However, it comes under the heading of "to do well what should not be done".

Thank our lucky stars the coalition failed. I don't see Topp's vision for what could have been. I do think, rather, that progressive legislation from the NDP that the Liberals would have oh so reluctantly passed would have only served to bring deluded progressives more solidly with the Liberals, while they enacted policy and legislation to warm the business world. And, with the key to the treasury back in their hands, it would have been politics as usual for their friends seeking government contracts and money for nothing while hard working honest Canadians did without.

And they would have done nothing for Canada's children, because it's just too juicy an item for the Liberal bait and switch platform for the next election-- and a Liberal majority and NDP colapse it would have been, too.

Again, fortune smiled upon the NDP and prevented us from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. In spite of our best efforts.

Finally. For. The. Record.

An important step New Democrats would have pushed hard would have been to consider affordable ways to begin undoing the damage Paul Martin did to employment insurance.

Paul Martin and the Liberals removed about 50 Billion dollars from the E.I. Fund that did not belong to them. Which they had no authority to do.

When you take something that doesn't belong to you, it's called stealing down here on the street, where we call a shovel a shovel, and not a regolith transferance vehicle.

I agree that our Governor General acted inappropriately. Since when does she only listen to a minority prime minister. What ever happened to majority rule. She should never have allowed Harper to prorogue Parliament. She does indeed need to step down.

Some people in western Canada reacted against the Coalition as though it was an attack on the West and would be dominated by Ontario and Quebec.

In fact there is no reason for the West to have fewer cabinet members in the Coalition government than they have today.

Currently the cabinet (which does not include Ministers of State) has 26 members besides Stephen Harper: nine from the west, nine from Ontario, four from Quebec, three from Atlantic Canada, one from the North.

The Coalition cabinet is to have 24 ministers plus the Prime Minister. Eighteen of these ministers will be from the Liberal caucus. Six of these ministers will be from the NDP caucus. "In the event the Prime Minister chooses to appoint a larger cabinet, the NDP proportion will be maintained."

I think they are going to dispense with Ministers of State, and have a larger cabinet but a smaller ministry: 29 ministers, rather than Harper’s 38. From the West nine, Ontario nine, Quebec seven, Atlantic four.

Well, we now know the Liberals hated giving up some positions. The idea of a 24-member cabinet would have wilted in a flash. They were already talking about Secretaries of State (junior ministers) in cabinet. When Harper had 38, the Coalition would have looked good with 33 (including the PM).

The coalition government would have overseen the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan in 2011, on time and on schedule, or would have broken up over the issue. That being so, Canada would likely have been doing what it could to mediate an honourable settlement in Afghanistan that allowed NATO as a whole to phase out its combat role. The fact that this week Barrack Obama set a July, 2011, deadline for U.S. troops to begin their own withdrawal from Afghanistan suggests we would have had important partners in this work.

Instead, the Harper government is contributing nothing to finding peace in that country. And as I write there is, disturbingly, much to learn about the fate of enemy combatants who surrendered to our country, on Mr. Harper’s watch, in the course of the tragic conflict in Afghanistan.

Speaking of coalition government, it's just too freakin' bad these Liberals are so clueless as to not realize what a golden opportunity they have right now to take the Harper government down and put them out of their misery once and for all over the torture allegations. What a useless group of politicians.

So yesterday Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff says there was no torture, but today he says there was torture. Why the change of heart, did anyone ask him that, or do they have the goods on all these bloody scumbag liars the likes of Hillier, MacKay, Harper, etc. These people are thugs and should be treated as such. The opposition has the numbers to boot their bloody asses out onto the street. The government should fall over this.

The Scene. “General Natynczyk said what the government has been saying all along,” the Prime Minister explained en francais with his first opportunity.

Across the way, Gilles Duceppe burst out laughing.

Sixteen times these past few weeks members of this government told the House that not a single proven allegation of abuse suffered by a Canadian-transferred detainee could be found. The Defence Minister, the Transport Minister and the Defence Minister’s parliamentary secretary all testified as such.

Two days ago, the Globe reported otherwise. General Walter Natynczyk insisted that a close reading of the situation in question demonstrated the detainee, later beaten by Afghan authorities, was not so much detained and transferred, as merely questioned. And government ministers insisted on accepting Gen. Natynczyk’s version of events.

Only just before noon today, Gen. Natynczyk summoned the cameras and notepads and announced that he was wrong, that new information indicated the detainee in question was not just questioned, but in fact taken into custody. And so suddenly, it seemed, there was some explaining to do.

Perhaps stumped by the Prime Minister’s first response, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff tried again, this time in English. “Mr. Speaker, when General Natynczyk corrected his account this morning, he did so, he said, in order to restore trust in his office and in his institution,” he said. “The issue here is trust. We cannot trust this government. We cannot trust a word that comes out of the mouth of the minister. When will the Prime Minister fire him and call a full, independent, public inquiry?”

The Prime Minister stood to repeat himself. “Mr. Speaker, the facts of the case in question of course confirm what we have been saying all along,” he said.

Now it was the Liberal side that laughed incredulously, apparently having missed Mr. Harper’s comments in the other language.

“Which is that,” the Prime Minister continued, “when the Canadian Forces see substantive evidence of any case of abuse, they have taken corrective action.”

Indeed. This government has referred previously to “credible evidence” and “credible allegations” and “substantial evidence” and “credible information” and even “credible, sustained information and evidence.” But then John Baird has said that “there has not been a single proven allegation of abuse of a Canadian-transferred prisoner.” And Peter MacKay has said that “there is no credible evidence, none, zero, to suggest that a Taliban prisoner transferred from Canadian Forces was ever abused.” And Laurie Hawn has said that “there has not been a single substantiated allegation of abuse of a Canadian transferred detainee.”

“The issue is whether the government did the right thing,” Mr. Ignatieff ventured with his third opportunity, straining it seemed to properly convey himself to the Prime Minister. “For more than a year, it had credible reports from Canadian diplomats, from Canadian military of abuse of detainees in Afghan prisons. It did nothing. Will it now admit that it made a mistake? There was a year when it did nothing. Will it appoint an independent judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of this affair, and will it fire the Minister of Defence?”

The Prime Minister begged to differ. “The only nothing here is that the opposition has had nothing new to ask about in three years,” he huffed.

Ujjal Dosanjh took a couple turns at shaming the government side. Peter MacKay stood to respond amid a chorus of calls from the Liberal side to resign. Mr. Dosanjh dared the government to call an inquiry. Mr. MacKay pumped his fist and spoke glowingly of the country’s diplomats and soldiers.

The questions persisted. There were groans from all sides and accusations of who was saying what about whom. The Bloc’s Claude Bachand demanded the Prime Minister apologize to the House. Mr. MacKay stood to respond, but was forced back down by louder calls to step aside.

Jack Layton picked up the inquiry. The Prime Minister dismissed his concern. Mr. Layton lost his patience. ”Mr. Speaker, will they stop already?” he begged, proceeding to point and yell and visibly demonstrate his frustration.

Exactly remind, it's way over the top, destroying what little there is left of Canada's once solid reputation, and that is why I believe that this government should be brought down immediately. Only this time the opposition parties should meet in secret and only when they have a deal should they go public with it to the GG.

If the opposition voted non-confidence in the government right now, the Governor-General would dissolve parliament and an election would have to be held. The window for a coalition or alternative government to replace them passed after their first nine months or so in office.

Two of the last chances to vote non-confidence in the government came and went with the HST vote, which the Liberals and Bloc supported. Tomorrow is the Liberals' last opposition day motion. They've put a number of different possible motions on the Order Paper, but not one of them is a confidence motion, although I suppose it could always be amended to add that clause by the Bloc (the NDP doesn't get sub-amendments unless the Bloc demurs).

If the opposition voted non-confidence in the government right now, the Governor-General would dissolve parliament and an election would have to be held. The window for a coalition or alternative government to replace them passed after their first nine months or so in office.

Two of the last chances to vote non-confidence in the government came and went with the HST vote, which the Liberals and Bloc supported. Tomorrow is the Liberals' last opposition day motion. They've put a number of different possible motions on the Order Paper, but not one of them is a confidence motion, although I suppose it could always be amended to add that clause by the Bloc (the NDP doesn't get sub-amendments unless the Bloc demurs).

In fairness, the NDP voted to keep Harper in power in September on the Ways and Means motion on the home reno tax credit - the Libs and BQ voted against it, so if the NDP had voted with them, Harper would have been defeated and there would have been an election. Layton and the caucus did get the EI changes for long-term workers (and later for self-employed workers) in exchange but they did keep the government in power at that time.

My post was the purest rhetoric. I didn't propose or state anything (other than jokingly), so what am I wrong about in a "practical" sense? That Harper is governing as if he has a majority? I think he has done that for four years and will continue, with or without an election, unless a coalition is formed to stop him. Now, if "practically" means that cowards and opportunists are not likely to do what's in the interest of the Canadian people, I agree with you - but not everyone in those parties is like that.

Finally some serious opposition to Harper. And he takes on Spector and kcks his ass too.

A fundamental test for Stephen Harper

One of the great principles of English liberty, upon which our system of government is founded, is this: no parliament may bind a future parliament.

It therefore will not do for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet to assert that the House of Commons cannot have the documents it demanded this week, because producing them might violate some law a predecessor parliament past long ago.

Parliament is supreme in our system of government, subject to the Charter of Rights. Which is not in our constitution to protect war criminals from justice, or ministers from scrutiny. The Prime Minister and his cabinet are accountable to the House of Commons. The House demanded yesterday that its own ministers table, unexpurgated, the documentary record relating to the abuse of enemy combatants in Afghanistan who fell into our country's power.

The ministry must now do this.

Some important constitutional issues arise from the Prime Minister's conduct a year ago, as I argued in this space earlier. But there is no exceptional circumstance here. The nation is not at risk of being controlled by the separatists and the socialists today. What we have here is a straightforward test of whether or not we are governed in a system of responsible government.

And so, whether or not this issue will be "a ballot question," this is a fundamental test of the character, principles, and judgement of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his colleagues.

In 1996, Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan wrote an article in Next City entitled "Our Benign Dictatorship" (you can find a copy here). This important article rewards a careful read on many issues.

But the issue today is this: do any of Mr. Harper's principles survive?

Or has he been so corrupted by his brief time in the executive suites of Ottawa that he has become the agent for the final victory of all the faults of our national government, discussed in that article?

Is his historic role to help reform our increasingly secretive, irresponsible, and undemocratic national institutions - as he claimed? Or the exact opposite?

Finally though someone is taking this right wing creep on who has had carte blanche to spew his garbage out unresponded to for years in our mainstream press.

Update My equally esteemed blogging colleague Norman Spector has entered this discussion with what I will respectfully suggest is a straw man. He reports correctly that old laws are in force until replaced by new ones. And somehow suggests this means the government can defy a direct order from Parliament to surrender documents that Parliament requires in an inquiry.

I don't think so, colleague. The government can throw up procedural roadblocks of course. But Parliament can (through the slow working of its own machinery, including its right to vary existing law) require its own ministry to surrender documents it deems appropriate. Arguably Stockwell Day and his cabinet colleagues are in contempt of Parliament today.